Keeping Our Representatives Responsible with Healthcare

While growing up, most of us were repeatedly told that the only dumb question is the one that isn't asked; however, if this logic still holds true, then as Americans, we've been asking a lot of dumb questions. It seems like, no matter which outlet we choose, be it through television, news radio, or the Internet, we can't help but be bombarded with news about the healthcare bills currently being debated in Congress. With every new article/report that is released, we are told that these pieces of legislation either go too far or not far enough, but one key point where all these writings agree is that something must be done now. Apparently, the sky is going to fall and America will fall into abysmal chaos if healthcare in this country isn't immediately reformed. Honestly, is it just me or does this "call to action" sound a little too similar to what we were told before the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. the stimulus plan) was passed? Unfortunately, the majority of the American people have allowed themselves to become scared to the point where they are unwilling to ask questions, without questions, we become victims of the law, instead of participating in it. Considering this, one would think that a bill with such far-reaching goals would merit and even require closer examination by the people who stand to be effected by this the most.

To begin with, in order to silence those who would detract from my statements, I would like to state that I too firmly believe that our healthcare system is in dire need of reform. Nobody in this country should be made to suffer with a debilitating disease/affliction caused by something that is easily treatable. The elderly, who have relentlessly toiled and sacrificed so much in order to build this country into the prosperous nation that it is today, do not deserve the uncertainty of unreliable healthcare and the degradation of having to choose between healthcare and basic necessities. For my part, I'm not supporting or attempting to undermine any particular piece of legislation; moreover, I'm simply attempting to inform the American people and cause them to question those who represent us in Washington.

So, that being said, let's look at and question just a few of the particulars of the healthcare bill in the House of Representatives (since it is the most evolved of all the bills currently being discussed). Again, these are not editorial slants or views, they are simply what the bill itself states. Below are a few selections:

1. The healthcare bill/plan isn't even set to take effect until 2013. If this is such an urgent issue, why are we waiting another four years?

2. Section 440 of the bill deals with home visitation programs for children. Do you want the government to instruct you on how best to raise your children?

3. Subtitle E., sections 141 and 142 deal with the establishment of a Health Choices Commissioner, a non-elected Presidential appointment who will through the direction of a committee determine the meaning of "basic healthcare coverage," what will and won't be covered, and how people will purchase insurance. Much like HMOs of the past, does anyone really feel safe by putting their health into the hands of one political appointee?

4. Section 401 states that individuals without health insurance will be fined in order to coax them into joining the government plan. So, regardless of how you feel about the plan, if you don't have insurance, you'll be forced to accept it.

5. The Congressional Budget Office estimate that this slightly-over-a-trillion dollar plan will only produce a $239 billion deficit. The funding will come from new taxes, penalties, and cuts in Medicare and Medicaid funding, which are cautiously optimistic estimates at best; therefore, the real cost will probably be higher.

6. According to multiple parts of Section 102, individuals will not be able to purchase ANY private plans outside of the yet-to-be-created Health Exchanges; moreover, insurers are not allowed to offer any new plans or change existing plans to meet public demands, if the bill becomes law.

7. In Section 1173A- specifically page 59 at the bottom, the government is permitting itself access to individuals' bank accounts for automatic electronic fund transfers to pay for healthcare costs.

With a current size of over 1,000 pages, be sure that these aren't the only changes that we will be encountering. It's definitely no overstatement to say that this bill has the potential to influence every aspect of our lives, yet, as those who will be affected by and expected to pay for this legislation, we seem unwittingly content to simply resign ourselves to whatever happens. Frankly, I think it is time that we as American citizens confront our representatives in Washington about what they are doing as well as what votes they are casting as our representatives. So, I implore you to contact your Congressional representatives; tell them how you feel about these issues and also ask them how they feel about these issues. Most importantly, ask them how they are voting on this bill. If you don't feel that they are willing to listen to your point of view and vote according to what you, their constituent, wants, then perhaps you should reconsider your vote the next time they are seeking re-election.

The Burdened Middle Class

Considering that we are now roughly 10 months into the election campaign and the worst of it (i.e. the next 6 weeks) is yet to come, I think that it is about time to let the proverbial cat out of the bag. Due to the fact that the principal job of any politician is to pander to get re-elected, you'll never hear one of them say this; however, as an unbound rational individual, I will say it: I'm sick and tired of hearing about the “burdens” of the middle class. For any drone that whole-heartedly buys into the sound byte campaign rhetoric of tax burdens, the mortgage crisis, and the failure of banks and finance companies, it is easy to believe that the middle class is on the verge of collapse. Indeed, the middle class, like all classes, is facing trying times, but let's try to put the three aforementioned issues into perspective BEFORE talking about each other's burdens.

Most Americans seem to think that the middle class carries the majority of the tax burden. Most Americans think that the hard working middle class is footing the bill for tax cuts for the upper class. Most Americans are wrong. According to the Tax Foundation as well as the IRS's 2006 data, the upper 25% of American taxpayers earned approximately 68% of all income and paid 86% of all income taxes (a difference of -18%), while the “over-burdened” rest of America, the other 75% of American taxpayers, earned 32% of income and paid only 14% of income taxes (a difference of +18%). Who is really being burdened here and who deserves tax cuts? Is it fair to tax success and achievement?

Regardless of tax burden, it is safe to say that the mortgage crisis is effecting the middle class more than the upper class. Many of our politicians claim that this is the fault of predatory lending practices. It is true that these practices are partly to blame, and laws against these practices deserve to be strengthened; however, mortgage lenders cannot legally forge names on a contract. Who forced this burdened middle class to sign their names and get a mortgage for a home they cannot afford? Nobody. So why must we all be held financially liable for the mistakes of some?

Thanks to problems brought about by failed mortgages, banks and financial companies are failing, which is costing the insurance, retirement accounts, and investments of numerous people in the middle class. To counteract these middle class losses, the government is preparing a $700 billion safety net for these failing companies. So, if failure effects enough people, then the government will rescue you, correct? This idea completely contradicts the risk and reward principles of the market economy. Simple logic dictates that companies that are too risky will fail, while those who aren't risky enough will not succeed and grow. If an investor or a customer loses faith in a company, shouldn't the first move be to find another company, not look for a government bailout?

In closing, it is obvious that these issues show no sign of a middle class teetering on the brink of collapse; moreover, it shows a giant segment of the country that is underpaying and relying on an all-too-willing government to bear responsibility and buy votes by paying for peoples mistakes. I wonder if the upper class wishes it had such a burden?

An Open Letter to the Members of Congress

An Open Letter to the Members of Congress:

I’m writing this letter to you because I’m highly concerned about the
issue of immigration as well as the manner in which the issue is being resolved in
Congress. Due to the overwhelming supply of media coverage, I’m sure that
you have received many irate and somewhat fanatical e-mails and letters on this
topic; however, I would like to discuss it with you in a sensible manner,
while focusing on several key points, which I believe are all too often
overlooked. The key points that I would like to discuss with you are: the
“2 Europes” problem, the issue of human smuggling across our borders, the
efficiency of the system, and finally, our expectations of immigrants.


2 Europes


Like many who followed the US-EU Summit this year, I was surprised to
discover that the United States still hasn’t done anything to change the
way in which we view Europe. According to the Congressional Research Service’s
Report for Congress (Order Code RS22645, Updated May 14, 2007), “The U.S.
Congress and successive U.S. administrations have supported the EU project
since its inception as a way to foster a stable Europe, democratic states,
and strong trading partners. The United States has welcomed EU efforts since
the end of the Cold War to expand the political and economic benefits of
membership to Central and Eastern Europe, and supports the EU aspirations of
Turkey and the western Balkan states.” Considering that this is a true
statement, how can we attempt to support the EU project on one hand, yet, on
the other hand, deny the nations of Central and Eastern Europe the same
rights, such as a visa waiver, that we have given Western Europe? I
personally feel that it is highly hypocritical of us as a nation to support a
union of states without treating them equally. A difference in treatment
would be completely justifiable if there were valid reasons, such as a
terrorist threat or narcotics smuggling; however, without a valid reason, why
is this process still in effect?


Human Smuggling


Like myself, I’m sure that you’ve heard and, at the same time, been
horrified by stories of people being stuffed like cattle into a van to be
smuggled across the U.S. border. While this is a horrible thing that should
be stopped, many people seem to focus simply on more border security to end
this practice, without taking time to refrain and ask why it happens. People
will pay and take the risk of being smuggled across the U.S. border because
they see it as a better, faster, and potentially cheaper alternative than
dealing with legal government channels. So how do we break this relationship
of trust between immigrants and smugglers? Instead of simply hiring more
border guards or building walls and fences, which could easily become a
“black hole” for taxpayer dollars, why haven’t we made a priority of trying
to have a greater appeal to the immigrants for the benefits of being legal,
instead of simply using law enforcement and fear, which essentially drives
immigrants further into the hands of these human smugglers?


Efficiency of the System

While most people want to enter into our country for prosperity and a better
life for themselves and their family, I do realize that there are a few who
enter the country in order to perform illegal actions; therefore, we must
have security on our borders to keep such people out of this country. That
being said, for security concerns, I am sure that an overwhelming majority of
people could understand as well as tolerate a reasonable wait in order to
enter and stay in the United States; however, judging by the vast majority of
stories that have been told by people who have experienced U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services firsthand, the process looks to be neither
reasonable nor timely. I’m sure that you too have heard the reports of people
who have patiently waited for numerous months and even years just learn about
the pending status of their green card, a background check, or permanent
residency status. Understandably, this is the right and legal route, but at
the same time, is it fair to keep a person (and their family) in limbo for
such an unreasonable period of time?
Consider the immigrants’ point of view: if your family is relying on you
as the sole provider and your legal process is taking much longer than
anticipated, what do you do? Do you wait for the undetermined outcome of your
legal immigration process, or do you do whatever you can to support your
family? I strongly believe that most of us know what we would do in this
situation.
Taking these points into account, wouldn’t it be wiser to improve the
system before we start punishing those who the system has failed?


Our Expectations of Immigrants


As we attempt to legalize all illegal immigrants, I don’t think that it is
unjust of us to ask our illegal immigrants to take additional steps and be
somewhat penalized due to the nature of their illegal status; however, at the
same time we also must remember that the more strict and harsh the penalties
become, the less influence they will have and the more discontent they will
create. Taking into account that virtually all illegal immigrants are
employed in low paying jobs (minimum wage or less), how is it possible for
them to afford a maximum of $5,000 in penalties in addition to the fees
incurred for the legal process? How can they feasibly leave their sole source
of income, for an undisclosed period, and afford to return to their native
country and properly register? Instead of doing this, which could potentially
create more problems, more needless paperwork, more of a backlog, and still
not prove to be effective in reducing the number of illegal immigrants
currently in the U.S., why has there been no consideration to making the
penalties more reasonable and applicable to the situation, such as making the
penalty a percentage of their income (like a form of tax) or allowing them to
register through their embassy (in lieu of returning to their native
country)?


In conclusion, yes, it is obvious to anyone who has kept abreast of the news
and developments with this issue that the status quo is no longer acceptable
and something must be done, but my greatest fear is that, in the haste to
quickly hammer any immigration legislation through Congress, we may all be
sacrificing the potential of having a truly just, quality, and workable piece
of legislation for all sides.


Thank You,
Brandon A. Blosser
595 Laurel St.
Chillicothe, OH 45601

The Mr. Snuggles and the Dual Jason Theorem

For anyone that's seen Friday the 13th Parts V and VII (as well as the other 1-8) as well as for those unfortunate people who haven't, I would like to propose 2 theories.

1) The Mr. Snuggles Theorem. Through almost all of the Friday the 13th movies (and I'm referring to the classic 1-8, not this new rubbish), the film makers make it a point of showing a cat, which is in some way integral to the plot of the film. Why? What does this mean? The answer is simple. The answer comes from the fact that whoever finds the cat inevitably gets killed by Jason, and they are killed by Jason only when they experience a run in with the cat; therefore we can conclude that, as none of the victims or characters are known to have cats, the cat must belong to Jason. Due to the fact that Jason drowns as a boy, we can also determine that he, with his child-like mind, would give the cat a "warm and cheery" name, such as Mr. Snuggles.

2) The Dual Jason Theorem. Friday the 13th, Part V. According to the plot, we are supposed to believe that (SPOILER ALERT!!!!) the murders were committed by Roy, the paramedic whose son was killed at the Pinehurst facility, in order to avenge his son's killing. That is reasonable and more than explains the killing of the residents and staff of Pinehurst; however, it cannot explain the killings of Billy, Lana (who, funny/oddly enough, sees the cat), Vinnie, Pete, the drifter, Ethel, and Junior. None of them were directly involved with Pinehurst, and many if not all of them were unknowns for Roy. In fact, Vinnie and Pete only broke down near Pinehurst, and, as for Ethel and Junior, they were arguably more for the closing of Pinehurst than anyone. That being said, we can conclusively see that there were no viable reasons for killing them. If Roy did it, then there is entirely no motive for it. On the other hand, what if Roy didn't do it? What if Roy was (obliviously to him) acting in unison with the real Jason? Consider this: Roy had no known knowledge of the aforementioned people or their relations with Pinehurst and therefore no motive to kill them. Jason Voorhees himself is a recurring killer (in the same area), that kills in an indiscriminate fashion (as these murders were), and, on many occasions, kills people after their contact with his cat (as Lana had). These facts point to the only plausible solution, there are two Jasons, unknowingly acting at the same time.

The Glorious Commencement Post!

To those of you who said I never would, could, or should create a blog...HA! I guess this will show you! Of course, since none of you here know exactly who I am, the point is slightly diluted, but it still counts. I am Ethel the Frog. I'm just your typical metrosexual-ish guy who over-analyzes everything, over-thinks many things, and has an often-considered quirky point-of-view. I have an opinion about everything (from hockey to politics to economics to porn), which can often lead to arguments and pissing somebody off, so please take that into consideration when you read and comment on my posts. Yes, this is your warning...all topics are open, so there's a good chance I'll touch on a topic or issue that you don't like or don't want to read; therefore, if that is the case, then just don't read it. All things considered....sit back, get yourself something to drink, and read on!